Slashdot Mirror

jeez. O.k. real slow.

What. Do. The. Following. Words. Mean. To. You. Question mark.

To me, and the rest of the English speaking world, they are defined as follows.

Muslim. Dictionary 1 Wikipedia Dictionary 2

Islam. Dictionary 1 Wikipedia Dictionary 2

Sorry, for being so vague.

My previious statment can be clarified thusly "you can't keep terms straight, and they are all synonyms (to you, as far as I can tell)." That help?

Or are you going to keep trolling (cue, 'Ha, you can't argue so you call me a troll.' (and you ignore, again, the request for you to define what you think these words mean))

O.k. now back to your clarifcication.

Probably the best way I can explain it is this: Islam is to Muslim what Protestant is to Christianity. Well that just explains that Islam is a subset of Muslim, and how much depends on who you talk to. But the main difference is that Islamists believe in a political superiority that drives a nationalistic expansion of their law to the whole world. It is the mixture of the political ambitions with the Muslim religion that makes one an Islamist.

So, what part of Islam or percentage of Muslims (Those that practice Islam) believe in nationalistic expansion? Is there another, more specific term for people that put such things into practice?

As you've pointed out, "Islam is to Muslim what Protestant is to Christianity." Except that makes no sense if you read the dictionary or Wikipedia. "Christianity is to Christian, as Islam is to Muslim" is the only thing that makes the barest sense. "Wahabbism it to Islam, as Protestant is to Christianity" would have made more sense. But again, that's just using a the wikipedia to define terms. "Many Sunni Muslims criticise Wahhabism for its lack of flexibility and general intolerance towards other religions and even towards other Muslim sects. A number of moderate Islamic groups have publicly condemned Wahhabism as being a distortion of historic Islam.

Many non-Muslim commentators refer to it as "Islamic fascism"."

So again, and I think we up to 5 requests now, what definitions do you use for these terms? How do you, personally, differentiate between those that want restore the Caliphate by force of arms and those that want to live in peace?

jeez. O.k. real slow.

What. Do. The. Following. Words. Mean. To. You. Question mark.

To me, and the rest of the English speaking world, they are defined as follows.

Muslim. Dictionary 1 Wikipedia Dictionary 2

Islam. Dictionary 1 Wikipedia Dictionary 2

Sorry, for being so vague.

My previious statment can be clarified thusly "you can't keep terms straight, and they are all synonyms (to you, as far as I can tell)." That help?

Or are you going to keep trolling (cue, 'Ha, you can't argue so you call me a troll.' (and you ignore, again, the request for you to define what you think these words mean))

O.k. now back to your clarifcication.

Probably the best way I can explain it is this: Islam is to Muslim what Protestant is to Christianity. Well that just explains that Islam is a subset of Muslim, and how much depends on who you talk to. But the main difference is that Islamists believe in a political superiority that drives a nationalistic expansion of their law to the whole world. It is the mixture of the political ambitions with the Muslim religion that makes one an Islamist.

So, what part of Islam or percentage of Muslims (Those that practice Islam) believe in nationalistic expansion? Is there another, more specific term for people that put such things into practice?

As you've pointed out, "Islam is to Muslim what Protestant is to Christianity." Except that makes no sense if you read the dictionary or Wikipedia. "Christianity is to Christian, as Islam is to Muslim" is the only thing that makes the barest sense. "Wahabbism it to Islam, as Protestant is to Christianity" would have made more sense. But again, that's just using a the wikipedia to define terms. "Many Sunni Muslims criticise Wahhabism for its lack of flexibility and general intolerance towards other religions and even towards other Muslim sects. A number of moderate Islamic groups have publicly condemned Wahhabism as being a distortion of historic Islam.

Many non-Muslim commentators refer to it as "Islamic fascism"."

So again, and I think we up to 5 requests now, what definitions do you use for these terms? How do you, personally, differentiate between those that want restore the Caliphate by force of arms and those that want to live in peace?

The dictionary

Actually, solid-state does not equivocate to "digital"

*Sigh* I'm not normally a grammar nazi, but one of my pet peeves is people using 'bigger' words than necessary to sound more sophisticated... especially when it's the wrong word:

equivocate
Main Entry: equivocate

Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cated; -cating
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says
synonym: see LIE

Next time try:
'Actually, solid-state is not the same as "digital"'
or
'Actually, solid-state does not necessarily mean "digital"
or
'Actually, solid-state doesn't have to mean (or be) "digital"'

Your remark about politicians is ironic considering you seem to be trying to sound like one ;-)

-chris

when the words "to slashdot", "slashdotting", and "slashbot will be included in the English dictionaries...

How about we post a front-page story to Merriam-Webster's and Oxford's?

From Merriam Wesbter's:

One entry found for adjure. Main Entry: adjure Pronunciation: &-'jur Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): adjured; adjuring Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French ajurer, from Latin adjurare, from ad- + jurare to swear -- more at JURY 1 : to command solemnly under or as if under oath or penalty of a curse 2 : to urge or advise earnestly synonym see BEG

I think my brain might be pirated, is there anything I can download to find out if it is or not? My AOL 9.0 with Dandy Fop speed doesn't have a tool for checking that.

I think my brain might be pirated, is there anything I can download to find out if it is or not? My AOL 9.0 with Dandy Fop speed doesn't have a tool for checking that.

Ahum, "their", "there" and "they're" are NOT pronounced exactly the same, look it up in an englisch dictionary if you do not believe me

Ahem. As a native English speaker, I can testify that yes, they are pronounced exactly the same way, at least by most Americans most of the time. I guess I should have been clearer about that. Perhaps in British English (which I assume, as a non-native speaker, is the variety you've learned) they're pronounced differently, though when I think about an English person pronouncing those words it wouldn't be much difference at all, and might even require a native speaker to discern.

And besides, don't tell me that the dictionary decrees that it's so, and therefore it's so, because that's just absurd. In spoken language, if 95% of people say things in a way that's contrary to what the dictionary says, then the dictionary's wrong. The study of Linguistics is there to serve languages, not vice versa.

To support my claim of the same pronunciation, here are the Merriam-Webster definitions for they're, there, and their. Note that all have a pronunciation guide in common. Yes, each one is sometimes pronounced differently depending on context or accent, but in my eperience the pronunciation the three entries have in common is by far the most common. Keep in mind, of course, that this is an American dictionary, and I'm an from the west coast of the United states, so it may not apply for all dialects. Also, as I said above, the dictionary isn't the authority -- it should merely report on how things are actually pronounced.

When englisch is not your first language, it is very annoying when they are mixed up.

I'm right with you on that. But again, that's an issue of spelling, not pronunciation. Anyone who knows English well enough to be proficient at conversation shouldn't have any trouble with "their," "there," and "they're" because tbry should be clear in context. -David

Ahum, "their", "there" and "they're" are NOT pronounced exactly the same, look it up in an englisch dictionary if you do not believe me

Ahem. As a native English speaker, I can testify that yes, they are pronounced exactly the same way, at least by most Americans most of the time. I guess I should have been clearer about that. Perhaps in British English (which I assume, as a non-native speaker, is the variety you've learned) they're pronounced differently, though when I think about an English person pronouncing those words it wouldn't be much difference at all, and might even require a native speaker to discern.

And besides, don't tell me that the dictionary decrees that it's so, and therefore it's so, because that's just absurd. In spoken language, if 95% of people say things in a way that's contrary to what the dictionary says, then the dictionary's wrong. The study of Linguistics is there to serve languages, not vice versa.

To support my claim of the same pronunciation, here are the Merriam-Webster definitions for they're, there, and their. Note that all have a pronunciation guide in common. Yes, each one is sometimes pronounced differently depending on context or accent, but in my eperience the pronunciation the three entries have in common is by far the most common. Keep in mind, of course, that this is an American dictionary, and I'm an from the west coast of the United states, so it may not apply for all dialects. Also, as I said above, the dictionary isn't the authority -- it should merely report on how things are actually pronounced.

When englisch is not your first language, it is very annoying when they are mixed up.

I'm right with you on that. But again, that's an issue of spelling, not pronunciation. Anyone who knows English well enough to be proficient at conversation shouldn't have any trouble with "their," "there," and "they're" because tbry should be clear in context. -David

Ahum, "their", "there" and "they're" are NOT pronounced exactly the same, look it up in an englisch dictionary if you do not believe me

Ahem. As a native English speaker, I can testify that yes, they are pronounced exactly the same way, at least by most Americans most of the time. I guess I should have been clearer about that. Perhaps in British English (which I assume, as a non-native speaker, is the variety you've learned) they're pronounced differently, though when I think about an English person pronouncing those words it wouldn't be much difference at all, and might even require a native speaker to discern.

And besides, don't tell me that the dictionary decrees that it's so, and therefore it's so, because that's just absurd. In spoken language, if 95% of people say things in a way that's contrary to what the dictionary says, then the dictionary's wrong. The study of Linguistics is there to serve languages, not vice versa.

To support my claim of the same pronunciation, here are the Merriam-Webster definitions for they're, there, and their. Note that all have a pronunciation guide in common. Yes, each one is sometimes pronounced differently depending on context or accent, but in my eperience the pronunciation the three entries have in common is by far the most common. Keep in mind, of course, that this is an American dictionary, and I'm an from the west coast of the United states, so it may not apply for all dialects. Also, as I said above, the dictionary isn't the authority -- it should merely report on how things are actually pronounced.

When englisch is not your first language, it is very annoying when they are mixed up.

I'm right with you on that. But again, that's an issue of spelling, not pronunciation. Anyone who knows English well enough to be proficient at conversation shouldn't have any trouble with "their," "there," and "they're" because tbry should be clear in context. -David

A google search of Slashdot PBS Video Game Revolution brings up the previous story as the first hit.

So, if I may be so bold as to suggest the following before posting slashdot stories from now on...

1. Find two or three of the most relevent keywords, you know, the kinds of words likely to repeat themselves in multiple submissions.

2. Go to google. You can find google at www.google.com. Here is a
hyperlink to www.google.com. Here is a definition of the word "hyperlink".

3. Assuming you haven't forgotten the important keywords from step 1, proceed to step 4. Otherwise, return to step 1. If this is the third or fourth time reaching step 3, you might want to consider finding a paper and pencil. If you already had a paper and pencil, then you might want to consider using them to write down the keywords.

4. Now, with those words you've remembered (or written down) from step 1, go into the text box in the middle of that www.google.com webpage. Type in the following:
Slashdot Keyword1 Keyword2 Keyword3
Now press Enter.

5. If these are your search results, hit back on your web browser, and then type in the following:
Slashdot Keyword1 Keyword2 Keyword3
ONLY THIS TIME, replace the three keywords with the words that you remembered, or copied down, from step 1.

6. Finally, have a look at some of the results to see if a slashdot story has already been posted on the submission you've just gotten. If there is a story, do not post the submitted story unless there is some information in the new submission that makes it somehow more relevent. And for the love of god, don't do a duplicate post on a story that's already too old, like you did here.

PS: Don't like these messages? Tough. Quit giving us duplicate posts and you'll stop getting duplicate flames.

I know you're trying to be funny and all, but I just wanted to point out that pronouncing it as 'nucular' isn't exactly incorrect, it's just not as widely used as pronouncing it 'nuclear' (like particular).

from m-w.com:

usage Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-ky&-l&r\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers.

Okay, it's a minor snark: it should be "affect," not "effect," in the story writeup.

Minor niggle. Keep up the otherwise good work.

Okay, it's a minor snark: it should be "affect," not "effect," in the story writeup.

Minor niggle. Keep up the otherwise good work.

A google search of Slashdot springfield map brings up the previous story as the first hit.

So, if I may be so bold as to suggest the following before posting slashdot stories from now on...

1. Find two or three of the most relevent keywords, you know, the kinds of words likely to repeat themselves in multiple submissions.

2. Go to google. You can find google at www.google.com. Here is a hyperlink to www.google.com. Here is a definition of the word "hyperlink".

3. Assuming you haven't forgotten the important keywords from step 1, proceed to step 4. Otherwise, return to step 1. If this is the third or fourth time reaching step 3, you might want to consider finding a paper and pencil. If you already had a paper and pencil, then you might want to consider using them to write down the keywords.

4. Now, with those words you've remembered (or written down) from step 1, go into the text box in the middle of that www.google.com webpage. Type in the following:
Slashdot Keyword1 Keyword2 Keyword3

5. If these are your search results, hit back on your web browser, and then type in the following:
Slashdot Keyword1 Keyword2 Keyword3
ONLY THIS TIME, replace the three keywords with the words that you remembered, or copied down, from step 1.

6. Finally, have a look at some of the results to see if a slashdot story has already been posted on the submission you've just gotten. If there is a story, do not post the submitted story unless there is some information in the new submission that makes it somehow more relevent.

Good luck, God speed, and don't forget to vote Republican.

Laws by definition are CREATED by legislatures.

I dare you -- show just one single LAW which a court has CREATED. Don't reference some judgement and call it a law. It's not. It's a precedent, or a judgement, not a law.

I don't think you understand what common law is. It is law, but it does not come from legislatures.

From Webster: (emphasis added by me of course)

common law: the body of law developed in England primarily from judicial decisions based on custom and precedent, unwritten in statute or code, and constituting the basis of the English legal system and of the system in all of the U.S. except Louisiana

How the heck did you look up satellite in the dictionary and still manage to spell it wrong?

You're stupid.

That's not Webster's Dictionary. That's just another cheapass website which tries to make money by taking Wikipedia's content and jamming some ads on it. And webster-dictionary has the added quality of trying to rip off the good name of the real Webster's dictionary

(I'm pretty sure Webster's Dictionary's trademark has long since passed into a more nebulous place.)

Unless your name is Webster, you're not in a position to dictate what words mean.

Okay, here's what Webster's Dictionary says:

There is no such word as USian.

Yep -- it's a good language.

In any case, the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic.

I concede defeat and wish to sign up to your newsletter.

I now understand that since one can find a plethora of sundry words in the dictionary, one can use any of them and converse as if one were highly educated.

I concede defeat and wish to sign up to your newsletter.

I now understand that since one can find a plethora of sundry words in the dictionary, one can use any of them and converse as if one were highly educated.

I concede defeat and wish to sign up to your newsletter.

I now understand that since one can find a plethora of sundry words in the dictionary, one can use any of them and converse as if one were highly educated.

No, but someone can certainly be educated in a bad manner, as is the case with many schools in the United States.

" US are very too dumb, they will elect Bush and they stress, it's very funny!"

" US are very too dumb . . ."
This part of your sentence does not translate well. The flaw in your grammar could, with a little allusion, be extended so that YOU (plural) are ignorant also.

" . . .they will elect Bush and they stress , , ,"
The 'each and several states' send delegates to the appropriate state capitols in the second week of December. These electors will cast their votes for President and Vice President. http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
Individual citizens will vote of course, but the popular vote in a presidential election is only a barometer for the electors to gauge the political atmosphere. Additionally, many/most of us will not vote for Bush.

" . . .it's very funny!" The word you're looking for is "ironic", perhaps "sardonic". George W. Bush being president has been anything but funny.

Maybe you'd like us to vote for isolationist Pat Buchanan?
See: https://www.cato.org/dailys/12-22-99a.html

" US are very too dumb, they will elect Bush and they stress, it's very funny!"

" US are very too dumb . . ."
This part of your sentence does not translate well. The flaw in your grammar could, with a little allusion, be extended so that YOU (plural) are ignorant also.

" . . .they will elect Bush and they stress , , ,"
The 'each and several states' send delegates to the appropriate state capitols in the second week of December. These electors will cast their votes for President and Vice President. http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
Individual citizens will vote of course, but the popular vote in a presidential election is only a barometer for the electors to gauge the political atmosphere. Additionally, many/most of us will not vote for Bush.

" . . .it's very funny!" The word you're looking for is "ironic", perhaps "sardonic". George W. Bush being president has been anything but funny.

Maybe you'd like us to vote for isolationist Pat Buchanan?
See: https://www.cato.org/dailys/12-22-99a.html

I don't know what's scarier, the person who posted this, or the people who modded it "Insightful". Confederates Defined Perhaps the poster is from Quebec?

It's fun being corrected by a moron.

From Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: 1 despite
Pronunciation: di-'spIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French despit, from Latin despectus, from despicere
1 : the feeling or attitude of despising : CONTEMPT
2 : MALICE, SPITE

Glad I could help build your vocabulary. HAND.

GAH! I hate being pedantic, but please, use a goddamn dictionary people (no, I'm not picking on you specifically garcia, just Internet denizens in general).
Plagiarism
Ok, got that off my chest... I know the new school of thought is "if it's spelled close enough for you to understand, it doesn't matter," but the problem is that it does. "lose" and "loose" are NOT the same thing, even if I can tell what you mean by context. It makes my job as the person trying to comprehend what you write harder. Have you ever considered what other people think about you when you misspell things? Not typos, those are more easily distinguished and acceptable, but gross misspellings. They make you look like Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel who done listened to a big word and wanted to use it hisself.
I suppose that's the end of the rant, and I realize it's way off-topic, but c'mon people, have some self-respect. Give people a reason to take your comments seriously.

Hmmm, that's strange. I only read your post just now. I thought I was replying to the same parent you replied to, in which context my post makes better sense.

In any case, Merriam-Webster's definition indicates that an acronym may be either pronouncable or not. Personally, I would personaly consider Merriam-Webster to be the second most authoritative English dictionary, after the OED, which even bills itself (probably rightly) as the "definitive record of the English language". Unfortunately, OED doesn't allow free online lookups and, again unfortunately but not surprisingly, "acronym" does not happen to be their free word of the day.

Other online dictionaries disagree about pronouncability as a requirement. I like what another poster said about the "nym" suffix meaning "word", but I don't know if I agree that a "word" must be pronouncable. I haven't really thought about it. Lots of words don't agree 100% with their etymology (the chairman might be female, for example.)

I agree with you that an abbreviation should be the shortening of a single word, but some dicionaries seem to indicate that an acronym is a special form of an abbreviation, which disagrees with our point of view.

If I could get OED's verdict I would submit to whatever it happens to be. Failing that, I'll cite Merriam-Webster, which happens to accord with my own opinion.

Your post made me LOL while I was drinking a coke because of your mistake, but I felt compelled to point it out anyway.

Ludacris is a rapper.

And ironically, your post was ludicrous

Chris

Uh, "the RMS approach" is just the legal definition of public domain. Public domain means no copyright applies to a work. See the definition.

You're confusing propositions with facts. And you're promoting that confusion quite assertively (but not factually).

You're confusing propositions with facts. And you're promoting that confusion quite assertively (but not factually).

"They use the word 'banned' to describe books that were actually, you know, banned."

Merriam-Webster: ban: to prohibit especially by legal means; also: to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of

The ALA: A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials.

Removing Daddy's Roommate from a grade-school library is not a prohibition (legal or otherwise) on use or distribution. There's a big difference between, "You may not carry that book," which is a ban, and, "We will not carry that book," which is not (even if due to someone's objections).

Some objections are absurd, especially many of those directed at high school libraries (usually 9th-12th grade or approximately 14-18 years old, for non-Americans). The ALA has some good points, but they ought to get their terminology straight.

"They use the word 'banned' to describe books that were actually, you know, banned."

Merriam-Webster: ban: to prohibit especially by legal means; also: to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of

The ALA: A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials.

Removing Daddy's Roommate from a grade-school library is not a prohibition (legal or otherwise) on use or distribution. There's a big difference between, "You may not carry that book," which is a ban, and, "We will not carry that book," which is not (even if due to someone's objections).

Some objections are absurd, especially many of those directed at high school libraries (usually 9th-12th grade or approximately 14-18 years old, for non-Americans). The ALA has some good points, but they ought to get their terminology straight.

I was also raised with a good work ethic, a respect for self-sufficiency and self-responsibility

I was also raised with a good work ethic which is why I would never participate in unethical activity, even if I were destitute. I never said that the employees had a good work ethic. I sympathize with the employees because I am familiar with betrayal, not because I condone their actions.

there *is no excuse* for 'owning' several thousand zombies from which to direct DDoS attacks for any reason

There's no excuse for lots of things in this world. That's how we know we're not in heaven. There's the old saying,"If life gives you lemons, make lemonade." These employees were trying to make lemonade. Whether or not they could have made better decisions growing up is irrelevent. They were making the best use of the lemons which life had given them at the time.

you *did* read the fine article

There you go being insulting again. I read the article and it only referenced one of the packeters as receiving $1k and a shell account for his services. I imagine the others were formally employer.

I also feel qualified to reject your idea of an unofficial caste system

Yet you recognize the existence of people who are at a disadvantage and you agree that they cannot afford the same calibre of legal counsel afforded by the wealthier classes. Isn't the meaning of a caste system the separation of priveleges based upon an arbitrary value like monetary wealth?

caste: 2 a : a division of society based on differences of wealth, inherited rank or privilege, profession, or occupation b : the position conferred by caste standing. 3 : a system of rigid social stratification characterized by hereditary status, endogamy, and social barriers sanctioned by custom, law, or religion.

A person with sufficient wealth to afford legal counsel could avoid the conviction. A felony conviction is a particularly large social barrier. Many employers will ask if you've even been charged with a crime regardless of the outcome.

As per the legal system, how do you propose that poor defendants be better represented?

I pay 60% of my yearly income to various taxes and fees imposed by the various levels of government to solve this problem. I'm only pointing out that it is a problem. I'd also like to point out that, for all the money which the upper castes of American society receive, their not doing much about it. Rather it plays in their favor to allow it to propagate.

You can still love your country and question it's direction.

Remember, patriotism does not mean you have to wave a flag.

I fear for the death of the English language as we know it.

When I can look up OMFG in Webster's, then I know it's all over for civilization...

No... by definition anything less than 10x is less than "an order of magnitude"

Not only is it ugly, its not in any way shape or form a "photomosaic"

Indeed. It would be more appropriate to call it a collage.

From m-w.com, "marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals"

People are animals.

Definition of Sarcasm

Definition of Irony

"I could care less" is common usage, loudmouth.

Definition of Sarcasm

Definition of Irony

"I could care less" is common usage, loudmouth.

When I was young, I was taught "Leeshur" and "root." Another thing I was taught was to "look it up" when unsure.

"lehshur" and "leeshur" are both correct
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=leisure
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=leisure

"rout" and "root" are also both correct
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=route&x=23&y=14
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=route

For the record, no one I've met has pronounced it "ra-oot" (two syllables). It's more like "rowt" ("ow" as in "how").

I don't think I've ever heard "pronunciate" but I've certainly heard "enunciate", which IS a word and means exactly what I presume "pronunciate" would be intended to mean. Are you sure you heard it correctly?

I know about the "Mosco" - "Moscow" thing, but admit to getting is wrong every one in a while, regardless. You can't take the american out of the boy, I guess...

Language changes over time. What was once wrong is right (and vice versa). And there ain't nothing we can do about it. ;-)

When I was young, I was taught "Leeshur" and "root." Another thing I was taught was to "look it up" when unsure.

"lehshur" and "leeshur" are both correct
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=leisure
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=leisure

"rout" and "root" are also both correct
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=route&x=23&y=14
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=route

For the record, no one I've met has pronounced it "ra-oot" (two syllables). It's more like "rowt" ("ow" as in "how").

I don't think I've ever heard "pronunciate" but I've certainly heard "enunciate", which IS a word and means exactly what I presume "pronunciate" would be intended to mean. Are you sure you heard it correctly?

I know about the "Mosco" - "Moscow" thing, but admit to getting is wrong every one in a while, regardless. You can't take the american out of the boy, I guess...

Language changes over time. What was once wrong is right (and vice versa). And there ain't nothing we can do about it. ;-)